• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

right to protect property with lethal force

  • Thread starter XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
This man wouldn't be a goverment official would he :uhoh:
I see he is a contractor, I think to many people put trust into someone they don't know and should never prepay for any service renderd. On the other hand if you goto a doctor they will tend to you and just bill you whatever they feel is fair. This does not seem right either.
 
Last edited:

jimd_21

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
185
Location
Blackfoot, Idaho, USA
All States need the Castle doctrine for this same reason, why allow someone to violate you and let them continue to violate others, hurting people and wasting tax payer money. It will eventually take someone like this to kill a person before the courts lock him up for a few years.....yes a few years because the prisons are overpopulated and he will be put on parol....
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
no, just a career criminal.
I think you still need to specify. :p

rimshot.jpg
 
M

McX

Guest
apparently this star criminal, i cited as an example, has a history of violent crime, drinking, weapons violations in other states. review how many time charges had been read in, and yet he never was held accountable for them, even as he continued his life of crime, and continued to get hauled into court. i won a marginal victory, his bleeding heart probation agent was clearly told; he pays me, or he does his time, and i won't rest until he's back in jail. she took stock in this, after my lawyer reiteratted it to her also. so he makes his token payments to me each month, claiming hardship and he can't pay the full amount. take a gander at the amount he stole from me, then you will clearly see my frustration with a system that is set up to cater to him.

it should also be noted; when he took the money and run, he went underground, using an assumed name- got a charge for that too. it took us 2 years, and about a grand in private investigator's fees to catch him, as each time he was seen, he would take off, running redlights, and stop signs as he went. putting the public in great jeopardy, to effect his escape.
but i'm sure now he is reabilititated, and a damn fine citizen right? at least the piece of crap is now a felon, and lost a right many of us hold dear. i take consolation in that.
 
M

McX

Guest
i mention this individual so that you have evidence to clearly view, he is moving up the crime scale, slowly but surely, year by year, offense by offense. yes, i agree totally, it won't be until he shoots or beats someone that he MIGHT be put away. little consolation for his victim(s).
 
Last edited:
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
i mention this individual so that you have evidence to clearly view, he is moving up the crime scale, slowly but surely, year by year, offense by offense. yes, i agree totally, it won't be until he shoots or beats someone that he MIGHT be put away. little consolation for his victim(s).

I agree, seems criminals are protected more then the victims and it's a complete faliure of justice.
 
Last edited:
M

McX

Guest
there is some humor out of these circumstances. another one exists; he got his probation moved to texas, where he can continue to flourish. he hasn't paid me a dime, but he doesn't realize his sentence is a bit different- if he doesn't pay, he will be extradited back to wisconsin to do his time. i am taking bets that on his last payment due day he flees to avoid his sentence, as he has done on at least 4 other occassions. i decline to name him here, you guys have enough to go on. do i consider these individuals to be a threat to me? hell yes. but again, their rights supercede mine.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
"Deontological", from the Wiki article, meaning 'rule based' ethics, is not effectively different, different in effect, from law-abiding. The law fails to make scofflaws non-aggressive in fact. The law abides the law abiding. The law abiding abide the law abiders.

"Abide" is a neat word, but being disappeared by the lamestream media's influence on the vulgar American language. Its etymological root from Proto-Germanic via Old English (Shakespeare, where I got it) means

  1. (intransitive, obsolete) To wait; to pause; to delay.

  2. (intransitive) To stay; to continue in a place; to have one's abode; to dwell; to sojourn;
    1611, King James Version of the Bible (Authorized Version), Genesis 24:55

    Let the damsel abide with us a few days.
  3. (intransitive) To remain stable or fixed in some state or condition; to continue; to remain.
    1611, King James Version of the Bible (Authorized Version), 1 Corinthians 7:20

    Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
  4. (transitive, obsolete with a personal object) To wait for, to be prepared for, to await, to watch for.
    1856-1885 Alfred Tennyson, Idylls of the King:

    I will abide the coming of my lord.

    1611, King James Version of the Bible (Authorized Version), Acts 20:23

    Bonds and afflictions abide me.

    I abide my time.
  5. (transitive) To endure; to sustain; to submit to.
    1856-1885 Alfred Tennyson, Idylls of the King:

    […] And shalt abide her judgment on it.
  6. (transitive) To bear patiently; to tolerate; to put up with.
    c. 1598, William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2, Act III-ii

    She could not abide Master Shallow.
  7. (transitive, confused with aby "to pay for") To stand the consequences of; to answer for; to suffer for.
    1667 John Milton, Paradise Lost:

    How dearly I abide that boast so vain, […]
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
It's hard to believe the discussion progressed this far without someone citing what the law in Wisconsin actually says about defense of property:

939.49 Defense of property and protection against
retail theft. (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally
use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating
what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful
interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force
or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably
believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It
is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense
of one’s property.

So there. One may use a reasonable amount of force to protect property. By law however, deadly force is never considered reasonable to only protect property.

That said, if one were to order an intruder out of one's home at gun point, and they did not immediately leave, one might reasonably believe that they aren't there only for the TV and jewelry.
 
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
Some people like to think Sparticus, and even have converstations about that which they are thinking about with other people who think. You may like to try it yourself sometime.

+1

i wanted to see what others thought and why, this may actually change my views on it (in which it did change my view), sometimes having anothers thoughts helps you to see things you are over looking, even simple things are sometimes over looked.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
Why would I not defend against the unlawful attempt of someone trying to take my property?
Unlike the OP, I cherish what I own, I worked hard for it and I am not about to let some criminal take it away from me without proper compensation.

Yes I will threaten life and limb to defend my property, and if the person who is trying to take it from me tries to get violent in the process, then they will get violence back.

Letting someone steal your property without you resisting seems like wanting to live in "Victim Mode" like so many of the liberals do these days. I refuse to be a victim!
 
B

bhancock

Guest
We do not have castle doctrine in WI. therefore we may not use deadly force to defend property. If you do use it in defense of property you will likely be charged with "murder". I believe that we should have castle doctrine and that this should be extended to your vehicle. I believe that if someone breaks into my house at night, I should not have to wait around to determine if he is after my ceramic cat figurine collection or to take my life before I may use force to stop the threat. If the intruder happens to die as a result of this force, it may be a senseless loss of life, but better the loss of their life at my hands than my life at their hands.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If I shoot your child, I would feel for your loss, but they would be ultimately responsible for their death because of their actions. I would feel horrible if someone killed my child but if my child were breaking into their home, I would not hold ill will toward the person.

+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top